Monday, June 03, 2013

As the House of Lords debates same-sex marriage...

Their Lordships might like to consider that marriage is essential for the functioning of society: in Scripture, it
is the model used to explain the mystery of Christ’s relationship to the
church (Eph 5:25-32). The Church of England ‘affirms, according to our
Lord’s teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent
and lifelong, for better or worse, till death do them part, of one man
with one woman’. This has its basis in the Old Testament, where YHWH
says: ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper
suitable for him’ (Gen 2:18). It continues: ‘for this reason a man will
leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will
become one flesh’ (v24). Although these verses do not purport to define
marriage, they do describe its origin, and are therefore crucial for
understanding the Bible’s teaching on marriage.

There are three
principal purposes for marriage arising out of v24: (i) the procreation
of children; (ii) companionship, and (iii) sexual union. Marriage is a
covenant before YHWH, which Jesus confirms with the phrase ‘God has
joined together’ (Mt 19:26); when a person ‘leaves’ and ‘cleaves’.

The Government believes that its fundamental job is to reflect society and accordingly shape the
future; David Cameron believes that his fundamental job is to modernise and re-brand the Conservative Party. And so 'marriage' is subject to the democratic will of Parliament. This is the mechanism by which an 'unnatural'
redfinition of marriage is to be imposed upon the majority.

And yes, His Grace used the word 'unnatural', for in its very etymological origins 'marriage' is concerned with gender complementarity. As one of His Grace's communicants observed in another thread:

"It’s worth noting that the Greek word root for marriage, gamos, derived from the ancient Indo-European root meaning the same thing, is the same root as the word gamete. This is our term for the male and female germ cells, egg and sperm, ‘halves’ which come from biological parents to form a whole fertilised cell, and thence a child. Every human has a replica set of both these ‘halves’ in every cell of their bodies, derived from their mother and father. If you like biological terms, a gamete is haploid, meaning it has one set of chromosomes, half of its parent’s genetic material. A fertilised cell, and every other (non-gamete) cell in our bodies is diploid, meaning they have two sets of chromosomes, one derived from the (female) mother gamete (ovum), one from the (male) father gamete (spermatozoon). There’s nothing discriminatory about this, it’s just the way biology works, but it does depend on difference and complementarity. Marriage has thus at root always referred to this coming together of different and complimentary genders with the hope of producing a biological union of the two and therefore offspring to continue the species. Bishops should know this, as should here today gone tomorrow politicians."

If marriage is no longer to be about equal 'halves', why not permit polyamory? Why may a Muslim man not marry four or five wives? Surely, if Parliament is to reflect society, the institution of marriage must reflect the sincerely-held beliefs of all groups? Why should a sexual minority be satisfied while a religious minority is scorned?

If the state has the authority to eradicate the
heterosexual imperative, who says 'equality' must be the new immutable
foundation? Surely it is up to Parliament, which is omnipotent? And if marriage may be
polyamorous, why not incestuous? If Parliament determines that the gamete is no longer the foundation of definition and children no longer the natural issue, there is no logical end to the varieties and expressions of
the institution. If, a decade
hence, Parliament wants marriage to embrace consensual polyamory, incest and
co-homeowners, there is nothing to stop it.

As the Roman Catholic adoption agencies discovered, and as those who administer school curricula are
finding, the inexorable quest for equality does not deviate for any
exemption: for equality to triumph, it must eradicate the religious
space. There will be no equality until two men can marry in their local
parish church, regardless of the theo-political misgivings of the vicar or the 'quadruple lock' enshrined in this legislation.

But 'language evolves', you say: marriage is being redefined
to reflect the new societal norm. There was a time when 'gay' meant
'happy', Abba was cool, Kylie was a c-list soap star and rainbows were a
symbol of God's covenant with every living thing (Gen 9:13). Over the
decades, homosexuals have appropriated 'gay' and 'pride' and the world
has not ended. But these meanings have evolved incrementally, even
naturally (and are still doing so, for 'gay' in teen vernacular has come
to mean 'crap'). But this was not the state decreeing change. The
Government is proposing to redefine marriage forever, and it will use
the full force of its bureaucracy to inculcate the new reality: no longer
will paperwork talk of husbands and wives, but of partners. No longer
will we be male and female, but simply androgynous individuals. And if
you resile from the new order, you exclude yourself from public office
and from employment by the state. If you dare to speak out against it,
you are criminalised. This is not organic change: it is societal
revolution.

If 'gay marriage' is the conservative thing to do because, as the Prime Minister avers, it strengthens society, then why are 57% of Christians pepared
to abandon the Conservative Party over the issue? Are they all wrong?
Are they all homophobic 'dinosaurs', 'backwoodsmen', 'Turnip Taliban' or 'swivel-eyed loons'?
And let us not pretend that the alliance against same-sex marriage stops (or
starts) with the Church: David Cameron has united churches,
synagogues, gurdwaras and mosques in a faith alliance against the
Government. The religious conscience will not be cowed or bullied into
submission in the name of 'equality', 'fairness' or 'tolerance'.

104 Comments:

An excellent post and critique of the madness and arrogance of this government.

"This is not organic change: it is societal revolution."

It is also tyranny. When Maria Miller MP and "culture" Secretary" announced that there had been a full public consultation on what she called "equal marriage" it was a complete fraud. It never asked the basic question as to whether those consulted were in favour of the principle of same sex marriage per se - only on HOW it should be implemented.

It is one thing for a government minister to lie (familiar and habitual for some), but quite another to brazenly and openly flaunt it.

"If marriage is no longer to be about equal 'halves', why not permit polyamory? Why may a Muslim man not marry four or five wives? Surely, if Parliament is to reflect society, the institution of marriage must reflect the sincerely-held beliefs of all groups? Why should a sexual minority be satisfied while a religious minority is scorned?"

Give 'em time. There are already calls to change the benefits system to recognise polyamorous marriages.

A brilliant post, Your Grace. There are a great many things that could be said about this matter, but you have neatly summarised many of them.

I have complained to my MP that Parliament is on the way to turning good citizens into opponents of the law - including people like teachers and other public servants who may, come a challenge, have to choose between what they believe and their job. "Conservative"? I don't think so.

Sadly, some clerics also believe their function is to reflect 'progress' to achieve 'social justice', to 'modernise' and overcome the 'bigotry' of past and less 'civilised' generations.

Its no good quoting Scripture to these 'enlightened' bishops as, for them, the Bible does not have a fixed meaning; we reinterpret it as we 'improve' through 'reason'. The steady march of progress is from 'bigotry' to 'justice'.

One will watch with interest what our bishops contribute in the Lords and how they vote. Will it be for God or for this evolving, more 'reasoned' society?

Hollande in France supports gay marrriage, but won't get married himself. Why should marriage be good enough for gays, if it's not good enough for him? Why not abolish it for everybody?

Cameron was presumably shaken by the London riots. Marrisge brings stability. So why focus on the gays: they weren't rioting, were they? Why not focus on the unmarried mums, whose kids were on the streets?

I was outraged to read in the Telegraph yesterday that bishops are being urged - from within the Church of England, for heaven's sake - to abstain from voting on this Bill. It seems they are afraid of being booted out altogether if they exercise their privileged position to vote against the Commons. I hope and pray that they will not give in to this bullying, and do the job they were given to do, to uphold and promote Christian doctrine in this land. The very reason they are in the Lords is to give moral guidance - so give it, your graces!!

There have been enough dirty tricks in the Commons to get this Bill through. We need the bishops to speak on behalf of those of us who have no vote, whose voices have been ignored.

I keep hearing that gay marriage is supported in the polls, but I have never been polled, nor has anybody I know - has anybody here ever been polled? I am suspicious of this.

Even if the polls are accurate, people who have given the matter as much as ten seconds' thought are given as much credence as the academics and researchers who have come up with mountains of evidence about potential damage, and damage already done in other countries. This cannot be right.

Thank you Your Grace for that piece.I am not a dramatic person, quite the opposite preferring the gradual, but I do have a sense that this Bill, if it succeeds, and God forbid that it should, represents a sort of turning point or defining moment, before we slide down a slope towards increasing personal, family and social dysfunction. Increasing divorce, abortion on demand and an attitude that people, relationships and human life itself is in some way "disposable" has crept into our national and personal lives, so stealthily, but this redefinition, this falsehood, regarding what it means to be a human person is a full in the face rejection of Nature, God's clear instructions for living and scientific reality, I believe. So it is I suggest a tipping point into chaos. It endorses rebellion against God, decisively separating those who accept it from His Kingdom. Cameron will have much to answer for. I hope he lives long enough to witness the effects of his selfish political machinations and thereafter, may God have mercy on his soul.

If redefinition of marriage morphs into legalisation of polyamory, a certain religion not noted for Gay friendliness or theological reform, may eventually achieve majority status. Imposition of their legal system and its draconian punishments would be to the detriment of all minorities but it would be particularly ironical if the Gay campaign for SSM ultimately proved to be the catalyst for their decimation.

"Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?""Yes""Do you think there is lack of discipline and vigorous training in our Comprehensive Schools?""Yes""Do you think young people welcome some structure and leadership in their lives?""Yes""Do they respond to a challenge?""Yes""Might you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?""Yes"

Now onto Survey 2

"Mr. Woolley are you worried about the danger of war?""Yes""Are you unhappy about the growth of armaments?""Yes""Do you think there's a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?""Yes""Do you think its wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?""Yes""Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?""Yes"

Polyamory and incest are not the worst of the possible outcomes of this iniquitous change – should it go ahead. Already influential barrister Barbara Hewson is calling for a lowering of the age of consent to prevent the so-called ‘persecution of (dirty) old men’. The beginnings of that slippery road to the point where there will no longer be any age of consent in law. And that which is now rightly condemned as a heinous crime called paedophilia will simply be another form of marriage.

Many of these problems, while we can see them, will seem far-fetched to the opponents of SSM. They can't even see the problems waiting in the wings, never mind those a few years or so down the road.

Problems like:I'm a Christian. Dare I now put that on my CV - or will that immediately consign my CV to the round file?I'm a teacher - what do I say if my head wants me to teach SSM?I'm a photographer - can I say no to photographing a gay wedding?I'm the pastor of a small independent church - how do we refuse to do gay weddings (short of not marrying anyone at all)?

I understand we are short of money and austerity is the order of the day.

This proposal will result in our needing to rewrite all manner of documents, which will cost money better spent on something which will benefit more than the tiny minority this dreadful proposal is addressed to.

Somebody must be paying Cameron - WHO?

Then we have the real concern: Cameron claims he is enriching marriage by making it available to people previously barred from it. No he is not. He is demoting marriage to the mere recognition by society of the legitimacy of sexual activity, rather than the right context in which it should happen, to provide for the well-being of the children that will be the result of that sexual activity.

You are right. I thought the same myself some months ago when I could see which way the wind was blowing. The ultra- liberal, anything goes lifestyle could well "flourish" for a few more decades, enjoying increasing political success, but then with ever more visible disorder, explosive demographic changes , fashionable conversions and a general weariness with the whole permissive trajectory, there could come a call to a new and very different form of "puritanism" like nothing seen on these islands before. Because it is long term, most people will not be interested.

His Graces Comunicants,This whole SSM issue makes me so upset and with so many people disgusted with the Conservative party as it is, I am becoming more detemined to set up a new party on the basis of INTEGRITY.

Yes, Big State becomes the only effective source of "moral" authority and legal power , with people as mere free floating dots, only weakly linked to others, if at all, even to their genetic forbears and relatives. Burkes "small battalions" are scattered, democracy is endangered and the central state sucks in ever more power as society becomes increasingly disordered. Dave may have an expensive education but as for wisdom, discernment and a respect for faith and tradition, this he lacks almost entirely. The Bishops are in an impossible position I think.

I think it is more a case of someone pulling his strings. From a recent article by Christoper Booker that identified a European dimension to this conspiracy, we can understand why he is ignoring legitimate concerns and pursuing SSM leglistation with indecent haste:

The drive to get same-sex marriage into law was masterminded from 2010 onwards by an alliance between Theresa May, the Conservative Home Secretary, Lynne Featherstone, the Lib Dem equalities minister, and gay pressure groups, led by one called Equal Love. They pushed the issue forward, not in Westminster, but through the Council of Europe, culminating in March last year with a day-long “secret conference” chaired by Miss Featherstone in Strasbourg. With the public excluded for the first time in the Council’s history, it was here that – with the active support of Sir Nicolas Bratza, the British president of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) – a deadline was set for their planned coup of June 2013. If, by this date, “several countries” had managed to put gay marriage into law, Sir Nicolas pledged that his court would then declare same-sex marriage to be a Europe-wide human right. Hence the recent rush for several countries to oblige, including France, where gay marriage has brought thousands of protesters out on to the streets.

Jay Bee, Yes the mechanisms of the EU, and almost certainly it's atheistic laws as well, are behind this. No surprise there, as it contributes to, if not causes, many of our national problems, especially the reduction in freedom of conscience available in law as protection for Christians. Vote Ukip is the only practical defense available.Cameron is totally out of his depth, putting imagined short term party advantage, which has backfired anyway, above longer, strategic, constitutional concerns. He's a disaster.

Appalling government (and colleagues, well they are not exactly an opposition)

Of course the bill is wrong. In fact, it is sick.

And, as many have stated there is then no reasonable block to any kind of "marriage".

In fact, there are some involved in pushing this who already acknowledge that.

I was sent a you-tube link by a colleague. It was a lesbian quite openly stating what comes next. A total end to marriage. The link no longer works. My guess is that she has been forced/ encouraged to take it down so as to enable the hiding of the truth.

I did post a link last week, but am new to posting on here and am having some difficulties in signing in etc. In my efforts to do that, I forgot to say that whilst this is a long article, it is well worth reading. But if you haven't got the time and/or inclination, do read the first (and third) paragraph.

Hardly anyone who comments on this site is supportive of SSM, but what have they done to oppose it? How many MP's or Lords have you lobbied?We can't just intellectualise the issues and say how terrible it is. We need to be on the streets like the French. They even came to London to protest for us.When our right to protest is gone it will be too late. Pontificating about the theological issues or the ramifications for the Church achieve nothing except tickling ones ego.Christians must unite now in both vocal and physical protest. Our esteemed blogger should morph himself into a real leader of the reformed church.

Since SSM appeared on the horizon I have written several letters to Cameron, clegg, Featherstone, my MP, the ASA (remember the C4m advert fiasco), donated to C4M, and written alsmost daily on various blogs, not to mention the sleepless night praying. If this legislation grieves me to my very core, how much more does it disgusts God

As to taking action, this is not over yet, even if the bill gets ascent.

Also, since the fall of communism it is Christianity which is now flourishing in Russia. In addition, the Russian parliament has just passed a bill forbidding the promotion of homosexuality. Quite a contrast to Cameron's perverts charter.

NickIt was in fact flourishing in Russia before the fall of communism.The Russians are in fact a rather conservative people.The Churches were full in eastern Europe in the communist years.Albania was the only state to outlaw religion.North Korea has churches and temples.

OwlThe group which called itself the International Socialists were Trotskyists,now known as the Socialist Workers Party. In the early 1970s they were not interested in gay rights or anything like that.

Manfarang.Because the false so called "equality" laws are being spread everywhere, by faulty reasoning and the UN. Everyone. Have a read of Le Manif pour tous, on the Anglican Mainstream website. It is heartening. The French are leading the way and putting us to shame. They know ho to reason, that's why. What have I done? 1.Wrote ceaselessly to my young, inexperienced , career MP, a social liberal it seems, to no avail. 2. Write encouragement to my Diocesan Bishop. 3. Pray. 4. Contribute financially to the campaign against the destruction of marriage. But I agree most of us could have done more, I put myself on no pedestal. The French push back may spark a worldwide revolt, I hope so.

They backed off: but they still pitched the industrial wage so low that both parents had to work. That left the State free to inculcate correct attitudes in the kids (in case mum was a secret counter-revolutionary).

Thay also tried, I believe (not sure of my source here, but I know I read it somewhere) to ensure that couples had time off on different days. (Prevention of family solidarity).

Goodness! Well I would have lobbied both the Duke of Omnium and Earl de Courcy...trouble is neither of them sits in the Lords any more thanks to Mr. Blair...lobbying the Bishop is easy (he does as he is told) but the blasted Jupiter is all in favour...what is a girl to do?

There was also the issue confronting Marxists about the nuclear family. Abolish private ownership of factories. But that's not the end of it. Everything in common? Private ownership of wives and children? Where DOES one go from there?

Listening to the Lords debate on Parliament TV is profoundly depressing. There are too many in favour. Justin Welby was a bit too measured, in my opinion. Tim Stevens is going to abstain.

A common theme among those in favour is that churches will be protected - as if we live in some sort of bubble and want to protect ourselves against those nasty gays! They don't seem to appreciate, or even consider, the reasons WHY we are opposed - for the future of our culture and civilisation, and the protection and nurture of children. In fact hardly any mention has been made of children at all, although Bishop Tim touched upon it - it is mostly about 'love'.

Leading Conservatives, as well as others, have claimed that supporting SSM is ‘to be on the side of history’. Those with any knowledge of history know that in the 1920s and 1930s many argued that to work for the success of Soviet Communism (or in some cases National Socialism) was ‘to be on the side of history’.

Nero supported (and practised) SSM, and look what happened to the Roman Empire.

Seriously, though, once we move beyond the absurd statistics of Kinsey, gays are an inconsiderable proportion of the populatin.

Gays are not the primary problem. The problem is heterosexuals (a majority now in the West?) for whom the ultimate reason for the existence of the sex act is pleasure. Life as the search for the perfect orgasm. Once that is true, the case against homosexuality (health risks apart) disappears. That is why plenty of heteros favour SSM. Same outcome as what I do: no kids.

The long-term consequences for the West of this mindset among heterosexuals has been pointed out uncompromisngly (and better than I can) by Carl Jacobs on previous threads.

It curious that one of the arguments presented around here is that we have civil partnerships so why do we want same-sex marriage. But swinging that around, if we have civil partnerships and they provide the same thing as marriage in law and rights etc then why is one acceptable (now) and the other is not? Why isn't the existing civil partnership law going to bring down civilisation and cause the sky to fall in? It all seems a little suspicious to me ... rather as though marriage is something the religious think they own somehow and that making it inclusive is a loss of terrority in the way civil partnerships are not.

It's hard to understand how gay marriage can contribute to social stability when homosexuals refuse to participate in the institution. Which of course is the historical record. Homosexuals demand the right to get married, and then refuse to exercise the right in enormous numbers. With the right to marry comes social legitimatixation. And that it seems is sufficient for most.

In the meantime, the changes have:

1. Deleted any connection between procreation and marriage. Adults therefore have no necessary obligation to form any particular relationship for the sake of the children they might conceive. Any relationship (or no relationship is sufficient.)

2. Deleted any connection between sexual exclusivity and marriage. Since marriage is no longer about procreation, the purpose of sexuality exclusivity in marriage loses any objective reality. The concept of adultery becomes voluntary.

3. Deleted any necessary connection between father and child. We can no longer assert an essential roll for fathers because of 1 & 2 above. His contribution cannot be considered essential because we have removed the obligation for a man to form a stable family unit before he conceives a child.

So how does any of this contribute to social stability? Well, it doesn't and it isn't intended to do so. It is intended to legitimize homosexuality. What thenof the obligation of adults to children? The have been subordinated to the autonomous choices of adults. Most especially those adults who don't want chidlren.

Father absense. Illegitimacy. Sexual profligacy. An inability to sufficiently civilize the next generation. These are stabilizing influences of gay marriage.

It’s just plain wrong ! Registrars and Teachers should be able to register as conscientious objectors. In much the same way as Islamic registrars and teachers will not be coerced into having anything to do with this sham procedure - For fear of offending their sensibilities. Well, WHAT ABOUT THE CHRISTIANS ? What about tolerance. What gay people used to ask of us before they themselves became intolerant…

The battle is lost on SSM. Too many degenerate MPs out there. Our last hope of any concession is the Lords. We need more safeguards and exclusions to prevent this dogshit marriage from harming the innocent. If we must legalise it, let’s keep it well clear of those who do not wish to roll in it…

His Grace's post is excellent, somehow a copy of it should be emailed and texted to as many Lords and all the Bishops as possible before tomorrow. They must read it.

They need to understand and realise that they have to vote against this SSM Bill. That it is changing the structure of society and cannot be rushed through our Parliament so fast. Hardly any of the issues and concerns that have been raised at various times on this blog by both the host and other communicants have been properly discussed in the debate in Parliament. And there have been some excellent points raised. The House of Lords is our safeguard against acting in haste and repenting at leisure.

Flossie has a point, in real life I don't see the Churches being able to be protected for very long at all. It'll just take a couple of vicious homosexuals to be turned down and take their complaint through the legal system to get any feeble quadruple locks undone and overturned in their favour.

Which brings us neatly to the next item on the Gay list – hate crime. Duff up a gay and it’s 12 months. Anyone else, it’s 3. Watch as it all unfurls, after the militant gays have put SSM in their pocket, and continue on without missing a beat...

I can remember reading a biography of Mrx which declared that he wished nationalise women (being a serial fornicator I think he saw marriage as an institution that prevented him from sexual access to other men's wives whom he lusted after.) Being female myself I could not think of a more sexist, misogynist idea and it put me off being interested in any other thoery or philosophy of his.

I'm quite excited (sad man that I am about politics) to see what the Lords do. If they throw it out too early then it will look undemocratic given the majority in the Commons. If the bishops turn up en masse to vote, against convention, then people like me will call for their removal. If the Lords throw it out after a full process then it'll be interesting to see what Cameron does as he can hardly use the Parliament Act given that he didn't have it in his manifesto and the Coalition doesn't really have a manifesto by the nature of its existence. That might buy some time, and lose him the last of his authority, but it's probable that New Labour will take it through at some point anyway.

Heh. How many go to church? How many Roman Catholics go to mass every week like they're obliged to? Do you? we do this everytime. The census is counting cultural Christians, many of whom probably wouldn't even be able to name the Gospels.

Unfortunately what passes for "mainstream" in politics is quite different from what is "mainstream" in society. It would be possible to list quite a few topics to illustrate this, but one will suffice.

Harriet Harman, Ed Milliband, David Cameron et al, thought, and still think, that it is right and proper to deny orphans and similarly deprived children the chance of being brought up by a mother and father.

What could be nastier than that? "Equality" for selfish gays has to come before equality for the unluckiest children in society.

All politicians who voted for that measure should be ashamed of themselves, and so should Stonewall and all the gay activists who campaigned for it.

As I have said before the Catholic adoption agencies should have challenged the government by defying the law.

If a line had been drawn in the sand then, we would not be facing the prospect of imitation gay "marriage" today.

DanJ0, let’s see now. After a vigorous campaign by militant homosexuals, the census question of “What is your religion” is to be amended to “What is your religion, and note that you cannot put down Christian if you fail to attend church at least 50 times a year”

The bill is expected to be passed by the Con/Lib Dem/Labour coalition with no problem. A LGBT spokes-thing said “This is a tremendous step towards equality”

My quick and dirty research indicates that Oz is holding out well against the destruction of marriage, NZ has slipped into it by what is described as political chicanery (I pass no judgement) and in the good 'ol US, the picture is patchy with strong fighting everywhere, state by state, and with some going down and others holding out. The speed with which it went through the "Beehive" reminds us of the weakness of NZ in not having a revising chamber, just a House of Commons. Canada seems to be going very dysfunctional, way "ahead" of the rest of the anglophone Commonwealth pack. So Australia is doing best, and it's because they are robust enough, as characters, to not worry about being PC and polite, which is one of the downfalls of The English, especially the CEO. France comes out fighting though. There's trouble ahead there, but it might fed into a resurgence of the right.

like the French, I think we need to be thinking in terms of post-legislation. I am encouraged by this short article and intrigued by the French governments attempt to stop it. Any government with the courage of its convictions would have no fear of a peaceful democratic protest. Hollandes government is clearly disturbed by the idea of democracy

The two cowards clegg and cameron also played a similar game by keeping the legislation out of their manifestos and the Queens Speech.

This bill is too noxious to just be accepted lying down. By rushing the bill through Cameron hopes we will all knuckle under and forget about it. He couldn't be more wrong.

Someone, or a small team rather, with excellent organizational and communication skills, needs to be thinking about a French style "resistance " movement. It needs to be a broad based coalition of churches of all persuasions, other faith groups, any interested political groups (Ukip, Conservative types?), any concerned people, parents, teachers, atheists and what have you who can unite around this aim of bringing down the whole dysfunctional edifice of so called same sex marriage. There are 400,000 French in London now, and many of those would have spirit, I would conjecture. Any views ?

"society, then why are 57% of Christians pepared to abandon the Conservative Party over the issue? Are they all wrong? Are they all homophobic 'dinosaurs', 'backwoodsmen', 'Turnip Taliban' or 'swivel-eyed loons'?"

David Hussell: your suggestion goes against all my instincts and inclinations, but it could well turn out to be necessary. I cannot think of any other current or recent topic that would bring me out on the streets, but this might well do so.

No such problem for militant homosexuality, what ! They represent ALL LGBT types, even those who want nothing to do with gay campaigns and are quite happy just living their lives. You would know them as “self loathers”, would you not ? But of course, they all help to swell the LGBT tiny numbers...

The true Gospel is now delivered to you from the wilderness Rev 12:6 as a witness Matt 24:14.Our heavenly Father will NOT put any child of his into a hell fire no matter what their sins. Sin doesn't scare God! He created it Isa 45:7 to teach us all the knowledge of good and evil Gen 3:22 for our eternal placement in his coming kingdom. Throwing a child of his into a hell fire has never entered the heart or mind of God to ever do such a thing Jer7:31, Jer 19:5. Anyone preaching a hell fire to God's children is deceived. The whole world has been believing in a god of hate murder and revenge (The devil Rev 12:9). The true word of God John 1:1 is now delivered Rev 12:5 here http://thegoodtale.wordpress.com/

God chose a woman Rev 12 to be the prophet like unto Moses and Elijah Matt 17:3, Acts 3:21-23, Luke 1:17. Those professing themselves to be Christians would be wise to hear all Acts 3:23 BEFORE making any judgment. The proof of what I tell you is in the hearing.

Prove ALL things 1 Thes 5:21. Satan has deceived the whole world Rev 12:9 until now.

On January 21, 1610, Our Lady appeared to to a Mother Mariana and predicted many things about our times:

" ... I make it known to you that from the end of the 19th century and shortly after the middle of the 20th century ... the passions will erupt and there will be a total corruption of customs (morals) ...

"They will focus principally on the children in order to sustain this general corruption. Woe to the children of these times! It will be difficult to receive the Sacrament of Baptism, and also that of Confirmation…

"As for the Sacrament of Matrimony ... it will be attacked and deeply profaned... The Catholic spirit will rapidly decay; the precious light of the Faith will gradually be extinguished… Added to this will be the effects of secular education, which will be one reason for the dearth of priestly and religious vocations.

"The Sacrament of Holy Orders will be ridiculed, oppressed, and despised… The Devil will try to persecute the ministers of the Lord in every possible way; he will labor with cruel and subtle astuteness to deviate them from the spirit of their vocation and will corrupt many of them. These depraved priests, who will scandalize the Christian people, will make the hatred of bad Catholics and the enemies of the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church fall upon all priests ...

"Further, in these unhappy times, there will be unbridled luxury, which will ensnare the rest into sin and conquer innumerable frivolous souls, who will be lost. Innocence will almost no longer be found in children, nor modesty in women. In this supreme moment of need of the Church, the one who should speak will fall silent."

Our Lady of Quito’s prophecies do not end with spiritual catastrophe. In a later apparition she foretold:

"In order to free men from bondage to these heresies, those whom the merciful love of My Most Holy Son will destine for that restoration will need great strength of will, constancy, valor and much confidence in God. To test this faith and confidence of the just, there will be occasions when everything will seem to be lost and paralyzed. This, then, will be the happy beginning of the complete restoration."

I wonder why you are others aren't so concerned that 68% of marriages in England and Wales are civil/state not 'religious'.

Furthermore 242,500 people got married in 2010 in England and Wales. In 1945 that was closer to 400,000, with a lower population. (All from the ONS btw).

It seems that no-one seems to care as to why hetrosexual couples aren't getting married, but are co-habiting and having children outside of marriage. If anything is overseeing the 'destruction' of marriage, then that is surely it?

So the sky, it would seem has ALREADY fallen. But no-one seems to have notice that or asked the question Why is marriage increasingly becoming not the norm? And secondly how do religions reverse this decline?

but then, it is easier for people to vent steam at 'burning fags' & 'vicious homosexuals', as others have said here.

We are indeed most concerned about the trends you mention; but they are not (directly at least) the result of any legislation. What is at issue now is proposed legislation, and now is the time to fight against it.

I wonder why you are others aren't so concerned that 68% of marriages in England and Wales are civil/state not 'religious'.

Before 1837 most people had to get married in CofE churches. There were exceptions for Jews and, if I remember what I read correctly, for Quakers. After 1837 it was very common for non-conformists to get married in Register Offices but they certainly did not regard their marriages as "not religious."

Marriage is ordained by God and to a believer a marriage in a register office is just as valid in the sight of God as a marriage made in church.

'We will not discriminate on grounds of age, caring responsibilities, disability, gender, gender identity, marriage and civil partnerships, part-time working, pregancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation or any other factor irrelevant to a person’s work.'

Well, that's alright then. Paedophiles can now apply.

'One Workplace Equal Rights' states:

The emphasis is placed on valuing difference as opposed to fitting in.

So we can now value the difference between men and women with SSM? I am confused. How is this valuing the difference?

In the Brave New World of the future the embryo will be manipulated to be neither male nor female. There's a 70's film with Rock Hudson of all people! who as a scientist finds a way to manipulate a foetus and the result is a beautiful and intelligent woman who grows from baby to maturity in a few days. She then goes on to kill everyone she meets!

Telegraph says “One of them, the Bishop of Lichfield, the Rt Rev Jonathan Gledhill, even posted a message on his website explaining that he would be staying away from the debate as he had been advised it would be seen as an "abuse of privilege" for all of the bishops in the Lords to attend.”

Surely all the Bishops HAVE to attend because they are representing the Christian community and our Christian culture, they are in the HOL to help safeguard society as part of their job, that they have been chosen to be in the HOL is a privilege, yes, but they must then honour that privilege by attending. Whoever said that by turning up to the debate and the voting is an “abuse of privilege” did it to keep the Bishops out, how dare they intimidate and attempt to gag them.

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)